Let me remind those out there who think that a businessman would be a better economist at the helm that
1) Bush was a businessman before he became governor. Look what happened at the end of his presidency. Why my goodness, increasing interest rates because the gov was borrowing so much, oh my, and then there were massive defaults on the subprime mortgage market,oh my, and then there was a *beep* in the housing bubble,oh my, and then there was a recession as a consequence,oh my, and then the biggest near fiscal disaster since 1897, oh my,(yes folks, even in 1929 the automakers and banks were nowhere near strapped as they were in 2008)
2) There`s a difference between microeconomics and its macro counterpart. Businessman know the former. There`s not much understanding of the the macro among them with the exception of such as Buffett.
3) Mellon was a businessman. He was the leading architect of the US`s fiscal policies during the 20`s. Yup, put 10% down and you can buy all the stock you want. That wasn`t a bubble but a blimp.

"In this Republican presidential primary cycle, no endorsement will be able to match former GE CEO Jack Welch's assessment of Mitt Romney in its sweeping claim: "In my lifetime, Mitt Romney is the most qualified leader I've ever seen run for the presidency in the United States."
Though CEOs love fellow CEOs, a record of sound or even brilliant business leadership is a lousy predictor of eventual political success in either gaining the presidency or governing successfully after winning it. Whether it's Wendell Willkie, Ross Perot, Donald Trump, or Mitt Romney, American presidential races regularly produce candidates or potential candidates whose business management prowess is touted as a key distinguishing advantage in the field of contenders. Thomas Sowell (who has come out in support of Gingrich) notes that "Romney's talking point that he has been a successful businessman is no reason to put him into a political office, however much it may be a reason for him to become a successful businessman again."
One of Romney's governing traits, a big plus for any successful executive, is that he is a "numbers guy" and is heavily dependent on data to make decisions. (For some reason though, he refuses to look at data in the physical world before gulping Kool-Aid from the same global warming cup as does the unhinged environmental left.) Looking at our most recent Republican two-term presidents, George W. Bush (like Romney, a Harvard Business School graduate) was undoubtedly more numerate and business-savvy than Ronald Reagan, but few conservatives question who the better president was.
One of the problems with business managers is that they can never expect the same level of control in government that they exercised as lead investors or as board directors. Romney's enormous success at Bain Capital derived not only from his ability to assess the worthiness of business plans and models, but also from his freedom to hand-pick from among the world's most talented managers to implement a business strategy and to fire anyone who was ineffective at doing so. As president, he won't be able to fire Harry Reid and replace him with Marco Rubio.
Nor does managerial brilliance speak to ideological or policy consistency. Herbert Hoover was one of the most widely acclaimed government technocrats in the early 20th century. A broadly admired centrist, Hoover served under both Democrat and Republican administrations. His administrative skills were so celebrated that when called upon, he capably served under both the progressive Woodrow Wilson and the pro-market Calvin Coolidge.
The fortune Hoover amassed in his early thirties as a successful mining engineer and executive probably compares favorably to Romney's net wealth today. And Hoover garnered worldwide fame in managing food programs that saved the lives of millions of Belgians at the outbreak of World War I, Armenians in the aftermath, and countless Russians in the early 1920s. Romney's rescue of the Salt Lake City Olympics might not have been as dramatic as Hoover's vast humanitarian relief, but Romney's efforts reflect a similar managerial skill.
But none of Hoover's past helped him navigate the onset of the Depression, where he chose a path of central government control and unprecedented tax increases in an attempt to cure the economy. FDR first campaigned deftly against this aggressive intrusion by government, calling it socialistic as he walloped Hoover in 1932, and then copied and expanded upon Hoover's programs in formulating the New Deal.
In his single term as governor, Romney chose similar central government tools when he instituted RomneyCare, and he increased a host of corporate taxes and government fees. Romney contends that his health care overhaul was in keeping with the Constitution and the proper role of states as incubators of innovation. But why is central planning bad for the federal government but good for a state?
Jack Welch and much of the financial world might embrace Romney for leadership skills in business, but because Romney lacks a clear and consistent governing philosophy, he seems to have real challenges in exciting a constituency beyond his 25%-30% base. And his past management successes tell us nothing about he'll perform as candidate or as president."

Yes, Hoover did manage to significantly increase taxes as he was so concerned about massive government debt. That was his economy`s downfall. He did increase government spending but not as significantly so as did FDR.
I am having major problems with Romney as he is all over the place. Who knows where he stands,what he`s going to do, even if he cares other than the fact that he would have the most powerful and respected position in the world. He`s had the silver spoon in his mouth since attired in the original birthday suit, who knows whether he can related to us plain folk`s problems. He`s too much of an uncertainty to take a chance on, but interestingly, in the last 20 years he might possibly be the best of the Republican contenders for the WH throne.

Obama has made some serious goofs himself, but at least he`s pointed in the right direction.I had little doubt the unemployment situation would right itself. It`s been coming down much faster in the past 3 months than I anticipated, but then again I anticipated its descent a year earlier.

The original stimulus package was too small to begin with. the $787 or &825, whichever figure you take it for, was below what it should have been. Obama, himself, suspected that would be the case as I recall several times he publicly reserved the right to initiate a secondary stimulus package. He knew the economists were probably right.

I was a bit perturbed by the corporate buyout of the initial federal purchase of corporate stocks. I thought we should have held on to the moneys for longer, waited for the stocks to float back up, then the public would have made its killing on the auto stocks. I said so at the time, but the politicians were too eager to cover their initial losses and immediately regroup their investment to make the books look good. For this I fault both Sommers and Geithner for not being more mercennary.

I also thought there should have been some mediation on the mortgage debt for individual homeowners, perhaps by splitting the difference between the mortgager and ee. In other words, if the value of a mortgaged home plummeted by 40%, then the banks would have to take a 20% loss, the homeowner the other 20%. After all the banks were as responsible for the fiasco as were homebuyers. All in all, poor government regulation, which is often the case with Republican administrations. Greed needs to be curtailed by a watchful government eye. It is the most rampant disease among the capitalist classes, as the Marx said, and their manipulatin of the financial markets is legendary. The rest of us suffer the consequences.

Hmm. Interesting. It looks now as if Santorum has a chance. I can see that it will be a brokered convention, once again, just like on the Democratic side back in `92. The question is still how much pressure will the centrist put on the TeaParty candidates to salvage a win for Romney? This is shaping up as a highly interesting race, but still Romney`s to lose even if his delegate strength is not as high as Santurum. Despite Newt`s future endorsement and possibly Paul`s as well, it will not be enough for Sanurom as the TeaPartiers will still sway their delegates to Romney with the better promises of positions. Romney is that much of an opportunist. I am sure he`s already plotting who he can flip in a pinch he`s got the more savvy staff.

Hmm. Interesting. It looks now as if Santorum has a chance. I can see that it will be a brokered convention, once again, just like on the Democratic side back in `92. The question is still how much pressure will the centrist put on the TeaParty candidates to salvage a win for Romney? This is shaping up as a highly interesting race, but still Romney`s to lose even if his delegate strength is not as high as Santurum. Despite Newt`s future endorsement and possibly Paul`s as well, it will not be enough for Sanurom as the TeaPartiers will still sway their delegates to Romney with the better promises of positions. Romney is that much of an opportunist. I am sure he`s already plotting who he can flip in a pinch he`s got the more savvy staff.

I love watching a tight race, this opportunity only comes once every 4 years and I savor the moment~!

Yes, Bush 2 was not only a failed businessman but he had used collateral twice over in getting loans. That`s a big NONO in business and the law. But of course when Daddy is VP, you can get away with anything, draft dodging, a snort or two, and who knows what else.